Monday, June 02, 2008

Majority of Californian's Views Now Favor Same-Sex Marriage

A majority of Californians now support same-sex marriages and oppose a constitutional ban on them, the first time in 31 years that voters have favored such unions, according to a statewide poll.

"This is a groundbreaking poll. The line has been crossed," said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo on Tuesday. The poll said Californians accept such marriages 51 percent to 42 percent.

But there remain deep divisions among Californians along regional, political, religious and age categories, the Field Poll released Tuesday concluded.

Read the rest of this story from the link provided above.

Looks like the vote on marriage that opponents of equality want is not going to be to their liking. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts tried to pass a similar amendment but had to gain approval of at least 25% of the legislators, yet could not muster even that minimal support. This sent them a clear message, "Don't bother", and they have not since.

5 comments:

SAN FRANCISCO — An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

In response to the Supreme Court's May 15 ruling, California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. Local officials have been told to start issuing the revised licenses to same-sex couples on June 17.

Gay men and lesbians would still be able to get married between then and the election, even with the initiative pending, unless the court agrees to stay its decision until after Nov. 4, as the amendment's sponsors have requested.

RelatedStories10 States Urge Calif. Court to Delay Finalizing Gay Marriage Ruling If the marriages proceed during the next five months, it is unclear whether they would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to 8 percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race.

Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of 3 percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.

in the "big scheme" of things, this is all wheel spinning. Ultimately, this is unconstitutional. There's nothing stated anywhere about preserving the sanctity of marriage in any government docuemnts including the Constitution. So try as they may, this is just one more hurdle for the bigots to cough up cash for before it gets knocked down. Because quite frankly, no one cares what anyone thinks about marriage. I don't. I stopped when the Bachelor, Flavor of Love & I Love NY were in their first seasons. Now there's some shows that respect marriage fully. Way to go straighties!

Since marriages are going to start being certified in California in a matter of days the question now is that even if the vote went against gay marriage, will these marriages be anulled ex-post-facto. It they are it will be a first say my ssources.

Recommended Reading

Veteran Ben LaGuer

Let me finally return to Dwight Macdonald and the responsibility of intellectuals. Macdonald quotes an interview with a death-camp paymaster who burst into tears when told that the Russians would hang him. "Why should they? What have I done?" he asked. Macdonald concludes: "Only those who are willing to resist authority themselves when it conflicts too intolerably with their personal moral code, only they have the right to condemn the death-camp paymaster." The question, "What have I done?" is one that we may well ask ourselves, as we read each day of fresh atrocities in Vietnam—as we create, or mouth, or tolerate the deceptions that will be used to justify the next defense of freedom.

– Chomsky, The Responsibility of Intellectuals 1967

Words to Remember:

"Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere; alterum non laedere; suum cuique tribuere"(These are the precepts of the law: To live honorably; to hurt nobody; to render to every one his due.)

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution

Never Forgotten; Sadly Missed

Lawrence King

GLBT Legends

Paul McMahon and Ralph Hodgdon in 2007

"If you want to be important -- wonderful. If you want to be recognized -- wonderful. If you want to be great -- wonderful. But, recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. That's a new definition of greatness." -Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Redistribution with credit and link to this website is preapproved.. Picture Window theme. Powered by Blogger.